Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

  1. #31
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Its not that simple at all.

    The winners unjustly punished the losers in WWI, creating the resentment and severe poverty in Germany that Hitler and the Nazis successfully exploited.

    The winners unjustly punished the losers in WWI, breaking up the Ottoman empire and creating new, and often arbitrary, national borders which destabilized the middle east. The middle east remains unstable.

    The USA prepared for war with Japan, with a military base and warships stationed in Hawaii and we got Pearl Harbor.

    We bombed Germany into complete submission. This time we did not collectively punish and impoverish the losers of the war, instead we helped them rebuild. We did not allow Germany to rebuild their military, which helped them flourish economically.

    We bombed Japan into complete submission, did not allow them to rebuild their military which helped them flourish economically, and we helped them rebuild.

    To insure a supply of oil and in the name of anti-communism, we destabilized several middle eastern countries by assassinating and/or overthrowing their leaders and supporting oppressive dictators, now we have radical Islamists and dictators all over the region.

    We destabilized several Asian, South and Central nations by assassinating their leaders and supporting oppressive dictators, leading to several ongoing long-term guerrilla wars and allowing criminal organizations to exploit the instability and gain political power.

    We refused to support any of the many anti-colonialist independence efforts in the third world and instead sided with the imperialists, their puppet governments and brutal dictators in the guise of fighting communism, leading to several ongoing long-term guerrilla wars and instability.

    The Russians destroyed much of Afghanistan, we supported and funded the Taliban because they fought Russia. After the Russians leave, the Taliban terrorizes Afghanistan with their extreme theocracy.

    We allied ourselves with a fragile coalition fighting the Syrian government that included radical Islamists, dropped bombs, contributed to a huge refugee crisis and the spread of militant radical Islamists in the region.


    In summary, we have had some successes with our foreign interventions but many more disasters which lead to much of the world's current violence and strife. We can do things to other countries, but we have been proven unable to predict the ultimate results. We were most successful in Japan and Germany because they were so defeated they could not resist our intervention. That required genocidal levels of violence and destruction, which may have been justified in those countries due to their extreme aggression, but that level of violence is rarely justifiable morally or strategically. We also refrained from imposing or allowing commercial (corporate, big business) exploitation of Germany and Japan and the rest of Europe, as we did in third world countries, the areas that remain unstable today.

    Recommended reading:
    Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA Paperback – May 20, 2008
    by Tim Weiner (Author)
    I appreciate your thoughtful response.

    I'd agree that history shows the results of foreign intervention as a mixed bag. I'm sure that there are other nations that have engaged in interventions and have a much similar mixed bag of results to show for it.

    It would seem logical that these interventions have a common failure pattern, where successful interventions have a similar common success pattern, that we'd be wise to stop using the failure pattern and use the successful pattern, unless, of course, there are no patterns to be had.

    Hard to believe that as noble and well intentioned the intervention that the percentages for success are against it. I wonder also if it's not an immediate need and action degrading and festering over time into more serious problems.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,870

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Read more @: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Do we really need any more proof that the Bush administration directly lied to us about numerous justification to begin the Iraq War? [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Yes, I would like more proof that the Bush administration deliberately lied. Did they get it wrong? Seems so. But my understanding is that most of the "reliable" intel of the day strongly suggested that there was a connection. And I'd like your opinion on the role of Jamie Gorelick in keeping various American agencies from talking to each other, which may have contributed to the problem.

  3. #33
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    Yes, I would like more proof that the Bush administration deliberately lied. Did they get it wrong? Seems so. But my understanding is that most of the "reliable" intel of the day strongly suggested that there was a connection. And I'd like your opinion on the role of Jamie Gorelick in keeping various American agencies from talking to each other, which may have contributed to the problem.
    Did they lie? "Seems so". But ehhh, whatever...


  4. #34
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,870

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Did they lie? "Seems so". But ehhh, whatever...
    No, it's not a "whatever." There is a world of difference between acting on what was regarded at the time as reliable intel and in deliberately lying and deceiving.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 05:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    I appreciate your thoughtful response.

    I'd agree that history shows the results of foreign intervention as a mixed bag. I'm sure that there are other nations that have engaged in interventions and have a much similar mixed bag of results to show for it.

    It would seem logical that these interventions have a common failure pattern, where successful interventions have a similar common success pattern, that we'd be wise to stop using the failure pattern and use the successful pattern, unless, of course, there are no patterns to be had.

    Hard to believe that as noble and well intentioned the intervention that the percentages for success are against it. I wonder also if it's not an immediate need and action degrading and festering over time into more serious problems.
    I apprecriate your acknowledgement.

    In my view, the least successful interventions and the ones most likely to create blowback are the ones that disregard a nation's people the right to justice, freedom, equality and self determination. That includes when we overthrow a popular leader, overturn election results, support coups by the military and elites, and assassinate advocates for just causes.

    However, even when we support a popular or righteous cause the results are not predictable. For example, overthrowing Saddam and Assad seemed fairly reasonable for human rights and other reasons on the surface, but the resulting chaos and violence is creating more harm than the dictators did. Complex political, social, historic and other factors makes it impossible to predict how people will respond and how events will turn out.

    There is also the fact that our intervention is not always about what is best for the people of that region. We have our selfish goals (ie access to resources] or stategic goals (ie containing the spread of communism] that may be contrary to a nation's welfare. These are all reasons is why we should not intervene militarilly or covertly unless we have solid reasons to think we can halt or prevent a genocidal level problem.

  6. #36
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    I apprecriate your acknowledgement.

    In my view, the least successful interventions and the ones most likely to create blowback are the ones that disregard a nation's people the right to justice, freedom, equality and self determination. That includes when we overthrow a popular leader, overturn election results, support coups by the military and elites, and assassinate advocates for just causes.

    However, even when we support a popular or righteous cause the results are not predictable. For example, overthrowing Saddam and Assad seemed fairly reasonable for human rights and other reasons on the surface, but the resulting chaos and violence is creating more harm than the dictators did. Complex political, social, historic and other factors makes it impossible to predict how people will respond and how events will turn out.

    There is also the fact that our intervention is not always about what is best for the people of that region. We have our selfish goals (ie access to resources] or stategic goals (ie containing the spread of communism] that may be contrary to a nation's welfare. These are all reasons is why we should not intervene militarilly or covertly unless we have solid reasons to think we can halt or prevent a genocidal level problem.
    Yeah, I can see where the real struggle is getting what you want / need, or what you think you want / need, at minimal expense and blow back.

    If the world were as simple as 'you've got resources that we need / want, let's make a deal'. But I think that it's rarely so simple and straight forward.

    Any more the US purchases / bribes allegiance from other nations with money in the form of foreign or military aide. Of course, that money always comes with strings attached, whether the recipient believes it or not. An interesting parallel between how the State Department treats other nations and how congress treats their own states! The same model. Feed them money until they are dependent on that, then pull on the strings.

    Seems that in previous history that wasn't the case (or was it?). Seems that there was far more wisdom in the US government during the post WWII and post Korean war eras, where these consistent, persistent and enduring allegiances were built. Recent allegiances built on foreign aide bribes don't nearly seem as durable. Perhaps that's where the US is starting down the wrong track? Using the wrong model on which to build allegiance with foreign nations?
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  7. #37
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,335

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Yeah, I can see where the real struggle is getting what you want / need, or what you think you want / need, at minimal expense and blow back.

    If the world were as simple as 'you've got resources that we need / want, let's make a deal'. But I think that it's rarely so simple and straight forward.

    Any more the US purchases / bribes allegiance from other nations with money in the form of foreign or military aide. Of course, that money always comes with strings attached, whether the recipient believes it or not. An interesting parallel between how the State Department treats other nations and how congress treats their own states! The same model. Feed them money until they are dependent on that, then pull on the strings.

    Seems that in previous history that wasn't the case (or was it?). Seems that there was far more wisdom in the US government during the post WWII and post Korean war eras, where these consistent, persistent and enduring allegiances were built. Recent allegiances built on foreign aide bribes don't nearly seem as durable. Perhaps that's where the US is starting down the wrong track? Using the wrong model on which to build allegiance with foreign nations?
    Greetings, Erik.

    : If your friends can be bought, you always run the risk of a higher bidder entering the picture. That's where the trust on both sides help cement long-lasting alliances. That applies not only to the political arena, but in everything else, too. I remember how insulted Germany was recently to learn we were spying on them. I don't recall hearing why that was done - maybe it's common in today's world, but the inference did anger them.

  8. #38
    Sage


    eohrnberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    24,818
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Greetings, Erik.

    : If your friends can be bought, you always run the risk of a higher bidder entering the picture. That's where the trust on both sides help cement long-lasting alliances. That applies not only to the political arena, but in everything else, too. I remember how insulted Germany was recently to learn we were spying on them. I don't recall hearing why that was done - maybe it's common in today's world, but the inference did anger them.
    Greetings, Polgara.

    It's been going on for years, but kept from the public for the most part. How many times over the course of history have the Israelis been caught spying on the US? Every time something like this comes to light, the spied upon country gets to be outraged for a spell, but I doubt that it changes anything.
    Disinformation campaign? The Russian collusion meme pushed by the 'news' media, behaving as a political propaganda organ, hell bent to destroy a legitimately elected president to implement his agenda per the votes of the same electorate. Reference The Big Lie Reference Goebbels

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by ToastyOats View Post
    Which is why conservatives have never criticized Clinton and Carter since they left office.


    Wait.
    Well if it weren't for criticizing the current President, (Obama,) Carter would still be the worst President in modern times. Now he's no longer the worst, just the second worst and after 34 years, Carter now can be seen with a grin on his face.

  10. #40
    Student Monte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    216

    Re: 2003 CIA cable casts doubt on claim linking Iraq to 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Hello

    I don't have any specific examples because much of the info is still secret. Theoretically the President gets regular intelligence briefs that are comprehensive and he can access any information he seeks. Congress and the Senate as a whole do get as comprehensive briefs and can not access all intelligence info. The intelligence committee gets more information that other legislators but not as much as the President. There are at least a few documented cases of intelligence directors or staff lying to legislators. A recent example is the lies told about about the scope of meta-data collection by the NSA that were later revealed by Snowden. Sen. Feinstein, who has been on the intelligence committee for a long time, says that she did not get accurate and complete information on torture during the Bush II administration which is why she now has issues about the practice. There is also recently revealed evidence that some of the top Bush II administration officials did not get the full information, although I suspect that they didn't want that info so they could have plausible deniability.

    "...Intelligence Committee staffers, however, said they had found CIA records that specifically indicated that Bush was not briefed on the interrogations until 2006, and that when he was, he had expressed discomfort at descriptions of prisoners chained naked and forced to urinate and defecate on themselves.

    Bush wasn’t briefed

    Staffers said a document from 2002 indicated that the agency had been preparing a briefing for Bush, but that CIA records showed that unnamed White House officials told the agency that the president “would not be getting the briefing” — implying that some administration officials were also hiding information from the president.

    Feinstein quoted then-CIA counsel John Rizzo as saying in a 2003 memo that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell “would blow his stack” if he were briefed about the program. The California senator quoted CIA records as saying the agency had also withheld information about the interrogations from then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld...."
    Feinstein report: CIA misled Bush, public about torture - San Francisco Chronicle
    So...if I understand what you are saying...there is no specific evidence that Bush Jr. ever lied about torture or about invading Iraq. Just supposition and partisan attacks from the left?
    As far as not being briefed, if true*, that does not in any way prove that Bush Jr. lied.
    And...it is a very slippery slope for anyone who still likes Obama. O seems to have many excuses for not being informed thereby deflecting any blame.

    *I personally do not trust anything that comes out of Sen. Feinstein's mouth. She is a goofy, partisan hack who needs to retire immediately.
    Kinda like McCain, Pelosi, Reid and a quite a few others.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •